Jihad: why to wage war?
Naturally, every creature on the earth needs to defend himself from the internal or external aggressions on him or his fellows. Humans are surviving by virtue of the same ability given by Allah almighty, they defend themselves from aggression. Muslims calle it Jihad; they fight with non-Muslims, so that they could protect themselves.
Jihad being the command of Allah almighty required certain prerequisites and rules of commencing, ending and conduct during the war (Jihad). In other words, why to go to war? And how to go to war? In number of verses in the Qura’an, however, Allah almighty prescribes the principle; that the original and permanent nature of relationship between the Muslims and the non-Muslims is peace and understanding rather than war and hostility.
The Quran clearly requires that the Muslims should opt for peace as soon as the enemy opts for it. (8:61), it declares that the Muslims are not allowed to take up arms against a people who re neutral; they are required instead to offer peace (4:94). Moreover, it encourages the Muslims to be kind and generous to those who did not fight against the Muslims and did not treat them with injustice (60:8). Similar examples may also be cited from Hadith literature.
Let’s start with the question: WHY TO GO TO WAR?
Islam is derived from Salam “peace”, so Allah is Salam, paradise is the house of peace, regards of Islam is Salam, regards of angels and Allah for the residents of paradise is Salam, Muslims are asked to advertise Salam and fight the illegal terrorism. The basis is the general principle that the relations of Muslims are based on peace and not war, and the cause of war is the aggression from non-Muslims, the affirmation of war despite the forbiddance of aggression is due to the necessity, the bringing peace, and withstanding the aggressors and occupants from the Muslim states.., because Allah almighty said: { وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ } (1:190)
“And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors”.
Some of the Shafi’is and Hanbalis considered the cause of jihad, or why to go to war, the infidelity “Kufr”. Primarily they base their opinion on the texts of the Qura’an and Sunnah that prescribe Qital (war) as a punishment for the opponents of the holy prophet (May Allah’s blessings be upon him). On the other hand, majority of the jurists were of the opinion that the cause of jihad is muharabah (aggression). They also base their opinion on the texts of the holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Further, they say that if kufr were the cause of qital then non Muslims women, children, aged people as well as priests and monks would not have been given immunity from attacks during war.
I believe, the position taken by the majority of the jurists is in accordance with the essence of Islam. The term “Islam” being an Arabic word; is derived from Salam which means peace. So an inference could be taken, primarily, from the name of the religion we follow; the continuity of a war for 12 months in a year will damage the claim of being a religion of Salam (peace) or the claim that Islamic state must be a welfare state!
The misconception, principally, is the result of a tradition which is usually presented as a prove for continued jihad امرت ان اقاتل الناس حتى يقولوا لا اله الا الله , as a clarification it is necessary to say that, this tradition is not a general because of the "ال" attached with "الناس" which makes it for specialization or ال التبعيض (specifying few out of group-of things-) so the tradition is about the idolaters of Arabia. Why they are killed till they become Muslims? The answer could be found in another tradition of the holy prophet PBUH "لا يجتمع دينان فى جزيرة العرب" followers of two religions cant live in Arabian Peninsula, therefore the infidels of Mecca had to become Muslims or get out of the Arabia, because of the sacredness and sentiments attacked to the pure territory.
To sum up this issue: most Quranic verses in Surah-e-Tauba which imply continual war with the disbelievers; apply only to the infidels of Arabia-the prophet’s own people and the immediate addressees. These verses have been generalized by some western scholars and their application has been extended to all categories of non-Muslims.
Coming to the word اقاتل, it is a feature of Arabic language that its every verb has some special characteristics. Muqatala (مقاتلة) (war) is derived from the verb-class of mufa’ala مفاعلةand the characteristics of this class is that it is used for a bilateral act. Like Mukalama, Musafaha, Munaqasha, Mushajaraمشاجرة، مناقشة، مصافحة، مكالمه، (dialogue, shacking hands, discussion and dispute) etc, all of the aforementioned acts take place between two or more parties. The same is with مقاتلة it must be between two or more parties, when Allah almighty saidوقاتلوا فى سبيل الله الذين يقاتلونكم و لا تعتدوا and fight those who fight you and don’t exaggerate, It is inferred that Muslims will fight those who fight them and will not commence the war, it is the basis of Islamic jus ad bellum.
The second part of the verse elaborates the modern rule jus in Bello (the conduct during the war) when it says “and don’t transgress”, Ibn-u-Abbas said don’t kill non-combatants, in other words the women, elders, children, POWs and priests.
وقوله: { وَلا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ } أي: قاتلوا في سبيل الله ولا تعتدوا في ذلك ويدخل في ذلك ارتكاب المناهي -كما قاله الحسن البصري -من المَثُلة، والغُلُول، وقتل النساء والصبيان والشيوخ الذين لا رأي لهم ولا قتال فيهم، والرهبان وأصحاب الصوامع، وتحريق الأشجار وقتل الحيوان لغير مصلحة،
“{But transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors} means: fight in the way of Allah and don’t transgress in doing so, it includes committing the prohibited acts-as Hassan al-Basri said- mutilating the bodies, killing women, children, elders who neither can advise in war nor can fight, priests and monks , ablazing trees and killing animals uselessly”.
So according to the verse the Muslims should not go to war accept when they are to defend themselves and must also follow the rules in the war; so should not kill the prohibited categories of humans.
When it is known that qital is only for those who can fight, we can easily say that cause of jihad is not mere Kufr and Muslims are not obliged to kill, rather fight, without a war being waged from non-Muslims. Because; if it they were obliged to subjugate and eliminate Kufr, women were the best option to be killed first in order to stop the kafir generation from taking birth, then the children and then the combatants.
Second argument for denying the cause to be mere kufr, is that when the prophet said about a dead woman "ما كانت هذه لتقاتل" she was not supposed to fight or to be killed, he impliedly meant to say that because she cant fight, she must not be killed. Therefore when we are prohibited from killing women and children means Kufr is not the cause but it is the war or Muqatala waged by non-Muslims.
Going a bit forward, POWs are not supposed to be killed, they must be treated humanely with respect and dignity, and those who fed them are appreciated by Allah almighty, he said in Surah-tul-Insan when he said "و يطعمون الطعام على حبه مسكينا و يتيما و اسيرا" (76:8)and they fed poor, orphans and POWs on their own consent/willingly. If Kufr was the cause of jihad, why Allah almighty appreciated them for feeding them? Will it not become contradictory if once he orders them to kill everybody, then appreciates them for humanely treating PoWs? This verse indicates that according to Islam a person could not be killed merely for being a non-Muslim.
Islamic state must, according to all Muslim jurists, be a welfare state, just imagine if a state is busy with non-Muslim states for 12 months a year in wars, could the inhabitant Muslims see a bright peaceful day? Could they have time for their education? Would they be able to enjoy modern health facilities? So, if we use the minor and major premise in order to get a rational conclusion, it will prove wrong:
Let us claim, major premise: Islam is a welfare state (with all the modern facilities) + minor premise: Muslim state must fight with all non-Muslims= conclusion: X, what can we prove, Islam is religion of peace or war? You see, we face a major problem; we can’t call it a religion of peace because it calls for waging war against every one. Therefore, when the name of Islam is peace, it demands peace; we have to avoid war, except in defending the nation or religion. .
As a result of the discussion we should understand that our relations with non-Muslims are normally peaceful but if any aggression takes place.
Now, let’s discuss the verses of the holy Qur’an regarding jihad.
As a matter of fact the verses in the holy Qura’n are of two types:
Absolute verses which command the continuous war with non-Muslims and demand killing them.
Conditional verses; which relate the effect (war) with a cause (aggression against Muslims, religion…).
To talk expressly, in Surah-e-Tauba Allah almighty said: “فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ" (9:5) and kill the infidels wherever you found them…, then said “قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ” and a lot more.
Notwithstanding The fact that these verses are specific in relation to non-Muslims of Arabia and are not supposed to be used generally, if we accept that they are general; we have numerous other verses from which it is inferred easily that all the non-Muslims are not liable to be fought with. Allah almighty says “لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ان الله يحب المقسطين" (60: 9)
Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion or drove you out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who deal with equity.
A tradition reported by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, لَا تَتَمَنَّوْا لِقَاءَ الْعَدُوِّ وَسَلُوا اللَّهَ الْعَافِيَةَ فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُوهُمْ فَاصْبِرُوا وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّةَ تَحْتَ ظِلَالِ السُّيُوفِ" “and don’t desire to see your enemy (to bring your army to their front) and pray for peace from Allah, but if such a situation occurs; then be patient and know that paradise is under the shadow of swords”. Means that primarily, our relations are peaceful, however, if a war is imposed then we have to withstand and avoid waiting to be butchered.
You can realize the difference between the verses, if we say that Muslims are asked to fight the non-Muslims; we would have left the other verses un-applicable. And according to the juristic principle اعمال الدليلين اولى من اهمالهما او اهمال احدهما “to apply two texts is better then to leave them both or any one of them”. Therefore it is desirous to say: we will fight the non-Muslims when they fight us or commit any aggression or they compel Muslims to convert from Islam, otherwise our relations are based on peace.
Moreover, we have another principle of imposing conditional texts on absolute, which will lead to application of both the texts. According to this principle; we have to apply the conditional text, impliedly, however, we would have acted on the absolute. So when one text said kill them all, another said kill them if they kill you, if we put to practice the second text, we would have acted on both, we will kill them (the first text) if they kill us( the second text).
Last but not least; I would like to mention the absolute verses which al-Kafir mentioned in one of his posts:
These verses call for killing, but whom they intend and when?
Let’s see:
1. بَرَاءَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ…
2. Verse 3: أَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ…
3. Verse 4 إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ…
4. كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ…
5. verse 12: وَإِنْ نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُوا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لَا أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنْتَهُونَ
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) the leaders of disbelieve (chiefs of Quraish pagans of makkah-for surely their oaths are nothing to them- so that they may stop (evil actions).
6. أَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُمْ بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ
Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of makkah) and intended to expel the messenger while they did attack you first?
Here as well, the verses mentioned the causes of attack or war, they breached the covenants, intended to expel the messenger, it is considered an aggression by Quraish, infidels of Mecca and are not general for all.
To conclude:
Our relations with non-Muslims are based on peace, we are not allowed to fight them but if they commit any aggression, we have to attack them, kill them and use the war for peace and harmony in the world. And to help understand the issue I would like to quote the translation of a chapter of the holy Quran, called Kâfirûn (the disbelievers):
1. “Say: [O Muhammad to these and Kâfirûn]: “O Al- Kâfirûn [disbelievers in Allah],
2. “ I worship not that which you worship”,
3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship”,
4. “ and I shall not worship that which you are worshipping”
5. nor will you worship that which I worship”
6. TO YOU BE YOUR RELIGION, AND TO ME MY RELIGION.
hope for a peaceful world!
« return.